|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 11 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Feb-16-09
 |
| Karpova: C.N. 5997
According to pages 357-359 of "Siegbert Tarrasch Leben und Werk" by Wolfgang Kamm (Unterhaching, 2004) Dr. Tarrasch converted from Judaism to Christianity on May 28, 1909. Source: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... |
 |
Mar-05-09
 |
| talisman: happy birthday S.T. |
 |
Mar-09-09
 |
| whiteshark: Quote Of The Day
<The greatest mistake in chess is to overestimate your opponent.> -- Siegbert Tarrasch
(from Kelly Atkins) --> http://www.gmchess.com/ |
 |
Mar-11-09
 |
| fred lennox: Reti wasn't fair to Tarrasch when he wrote of him. Although he tried to be appreciative, and no doubt was to a point, he said steinitz writings made you think, tarrasch writings help you not to think. Not quite. Tarrasch did not merely simplified the concepts of steinitz which no one could ignore, to methodical play. He clarified it to his ideal. The big difference is in the ratio between mobility/weaknesses. Steinitz was willing to sacrifice mobility to sustain minimal weaknesses. Tarrasch was willing to sacrifice weaknesses for the sake of mobility. This requires thought. The former you have Petrosian, Karpov, Krammik. The latter Tal Spassky, Fisher to name a few. Tarrasch tries to keep patient maneuverings to a minimal, Steinitz explores their merits. The spirit of Tarrasch will live on as long as the game is played. It's alive in Carlsen as much as any player i know since. |
 |
Mar-11-09
 |
| Gypsy: <fred lennox: Reti wasn't fair to Tarrasch when he wrote of him. ...> Here is something less well known that Reti wrote about Dr. Tarrasch. Richard Reti, 1922:
< The occasion of Dr. Tarrasch's 60-th birthday allows me to repay a part of an old, heavy debt. Together with other young masters, I searched new paths in chess and I fought long and hard against the masters of old, not only over the board, but also by my pen and ink. And I fought primarily against Dr. Tarrasch, for in him I saw then and I see now the very paragon of chess of his era.Yet I also have had a guilty conscience that I, a young person, have so often lead an attack against this man, who can look back upon a life full of activity and accomplishments, who in his own youth was a great innovator, and from whom we have learned so much. Thus I have looked for an opportunity to ease my conscience and say, as well as I can, what Tarrasch has meant for chess. I do not know if I am the most appropriate person to do so, but I do feel to be the most obligated one. --- a long background on state of chess art during Steinitz years --- ...Tarrasch's biggest chess contribution was that he combined the technique of Steinitz with an otherwise common chess practice of fast development (Steinitz had a tendency to neglect that). Thus Tarrasch created a playing style that remains a fundamental cornerstone of chess till this day. Tarrasch further developed another branch of Steinitz research, that of correct handling of cramped position of an opponent. That is not a trite or trifling aspect of Steinitz teaching. Oh, contraire! Quite possibly, spatial advantage may be the most important of Steinitz positional advantages because most other types of positional edge, such the advantage of two bishops or a complex of weak squares, can transform into spatial gains. We shall remind ourselves that most of the famous tournament wins of Maroczy, Schlechter, Teichmann, and many others came as the result of a progressive crowding of their opponent; thus we will realize also here the degree of critical influence of Dr Tarrasch on the chess development of his time. The impact of Dr. Tarrasch comes not only from his practical chess activities, but also from his literary writings. In a sharp contrast to other masters who kept their methods secret, Tarrasch always shared his theories, his way of thinking, and he put them up for a debate. .... Perhaps his accomplishment could have been even greater -- and they were grand indeed -- had Tarrasch not shared all of his discoveries. But our descendants, who will certainly not only value chess as a sport, but rather will view it as an art form, will surely appreciate Dr. Tarrasch not only according to his results -- and those were great -- but still more according to the intrinsic content of his contribution. ...
Tarrasch always valued his beloved chess. And he always lead a life of a high priest of the art! Tarrasch vs Schlechter, 1894
Tarrasch vs G Marco, 1898
Tarrasch vs Walbrodt, 1898
> |
 |
Mar-12-09
 |
| fred lennox: <Gypsy> Thank you for the lesser known quote by Reti. I never read it before. I like Reti by the way, very much, as a player, writer and man. One of nature's noblemen, you might say. |
 |
Mar-13-09
 |
| Gypsy: <fred lennox:...Tarrasch was willing to sacrifice weaknesses for the sake of mobility.> Dogmatic Tarrasch was so vilified in the books of Kotov and such that I was quite surprised when I finally got to play through some of Tarrasch's games: What a lively and enterprising brand of chess he actually played! |
 |
| Mar-13-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: Tarrasch also had a great sense of humor, which comes through when you read his stuff. |
 |
| Mar-13-09 |
| nescio: His writings were witty and original, his play was sparkling and principled. Like Niemzowitsch and Boleslavsky, Tarrasch had many a disappointing result due to his principles, but such players are invaluable for the development of chess ideas. |
 |
Apr-25-09
 |
| notyetagm: Could some Tarrasch fan please use a database mask to find <PGN> for this brilliant <MATE IN 3> combination that I once saw in a Tarrasch game? The combination went as follows, with Dr. Tarrasch playing White: <1) White sacrificed a piece for the Black f7-pawn2) White sacrificed a piece for the Black h7-pawn
3) Ng6# as the g6-square was now undefended> It looked something like this:
 click for larger view1 e5xf7+! d7x f7 2 d3xh7+! f8x h7 3 f4-g6#
 click for larger view
Thanks |
 |
Apr-25-09
 |
| whiteshark: <notyetagm> I've tried the sacrifice explorer for a while, but the only 'similar' mating pattern with + came up in Tarrasch vs Satzinger, 1915 click for larger view |
 |
Apr-25-09
 |
| notyetagm: <whiteshark: <notyetagm> I've tried the sacrifice explorer for a while, but the only 'similar' mating pattern with B+N came up in Tarrasch vs Satzinger, 1915> No, that is not it. But thanks for the effort.
It's probably going to take a database program like Chessbase 10 to find it. |
 |
| Jun-14-09 |
| rogl: Notyetagm, there is another fun mate from your diagram: 1. Qxh7+ Nxh7 2. Ng6+ fxg6 3. Nxg6#. |
 |
| Jul-17-09 |
| Dr. Siggy: <notyetagm>: The closest I found is the following, from Tarrasch's great classic "The Game of Chess", English transl., London 1935, page 184: click for larger view"In position #282, White exploited very prettily the unfavourable position of Black's Nh5 by playing 1. Bh7+ Kh8 2. Bg6!. (If the Bishop is taken, then 2. Nxg6+ wins the Queen). After 2... Nf6, there followed 3. Bxf7!, again with the threat of winning the Queen, and after 3... Qd6 White forced a splendid smothered mate: 4. Ng6+ Kh7 5. Nxf8+ Kh8 6. Qh7+! Nxh7 7. Ng6#." |
 |
Sep-19-09
 |
| Jonathan Sarfati: I've pointed out before that some of Watson's criticism of Tarrasch's alleged dogmatism is wide of the mark. E.g. Tarrasch's notes to Paulsen vs Tarrasch, 1888 point out 6... d7 would have given White a good game after 7. dxc5, so he played 6... cxd4 first. Yet in the famous "overprotection" game Nimzowitsch vs Salwe, 1911, Salwe was unaware of Tarrasch's advice, while **Nimzo played Tarrasch's own recommendation** — then was praised to the skies for his original revolutionary anti-dogmatism. |
 |
Sep-26-09
 |
| Open Defence: has anyone tried the Tarrasch chess GUI ? |
 |
Oct-21-09
 |
| keypusher: <Analyze This> (from the Fischer page) <Whatever you think of Tarrasch's wins [at Breslau 1889, Manchester 1890, Dresden 1892, and Leipzig 1894], the fact is that they were more impressive those specific years than anything Lasker was doing.> Not really. They both had very good results.
Obviously 27-year-old Tarrasch winning the main tournament at Breslau 1889 was better than 20-year-old Lasker winning the cadet tournament. But after that...in 1890 Lasker beat Mieses +5-0=3. Then he went to England and beat Bird +5-2=1. He also beat Englisch in a short match. Englisch was past his prime, but managed to draw a short match with Pillsbury six years later. In 1892 Lasker won a strong tournament over Gunsburg (who had recently lost a title match), Blackburne, Mason and Bird. This was probably about the same strength as Tarrasch's international tournaments, though of course those had more participants. Lasker also won a weaker London tournament over Mason among others. More importantly, he routed Blackburne (+6-0=4) and Bird (+5-0=0) in matches. Then he went to America and decisively defeated Showalter (+6-2=1). Showalter, remember, gave Pillsbury all he could handle in matches at the end of the decade. In 1893, Lasker swept several matches in Cuba and scored a +13-0=0 triumph at a medium-strength tournament in New York. In 1894, of course, Lasker beat Steinitz +10-5=4.
Apart from the international tournaments and the Chigorin match, during this time Tarrasch also beat Taubenhaus (1891) and Walbrodt (1894, +7-0=1) in matches. Tarrasch was certainly more famous in the chess world than Lasker in these years, and had some great results. The Walbrodt match was outstanding. The blot on his record, and it is a serious one, is his failure to beat Chigorin. Lasker won every tournament and match he contested between 1890 and 1894, generally by large margins. I wouldn't say with complete confidence that his results were better, but I think they were. At a minimum, they were as good IMO. |
 |
| Oct-21-09 |
| TheFocus: <keypusher> <Lasker won every tournament and match he contested between 1890 and 1894, generally by large margins.>
Let's include:
1889
Amsterdam - 1. Burn 7; 2. Lasker 6.
1890
Berlin: shared 1st place with Berthold Lasker. They drew their play-off game. 1 point over the field. Graz: 1. Makovetz 5; 2. Bauer 4.5; 3. Lasker 4.
1892
London B.C.A.: 1st with 2 points over the field.
London Masters: 1st with half a point over Blackburne. 1893
New York: 1st with a perfect +13=0-0 - 4.5 points over the field. |
 |
| Oct-21-09 |
| TheFocus: Now in match play, again let us include 1889. Lasker won 27 matches and drew the one with Shipley: 1889
Bardeleben +2=1-1
1889-90
Mieses +5=3-0
1890
Bird +7=3-2
Miniati +3=2-0
Englisch +2=3-0
1891
Lee +1=1-0
1892
Blackburne +6=4-0
Bird +5=0-0
Match series against leading players of Manhattan CC: Hanham +3=0-0
Simonson +2=0-1
Baird, D.G. +3=0-0
Isaacson +3=0-0
Hodges +2=0-1
Delmar +2=1-0
Ryan +3=0-0
Baird, J.W. +3=0-0
Match series against leading players of Brooklyn CC: Blackmar +2=0-0
DeVisser +2=0-0
Richardson +1=1-0
Match series against leading players of Franklin CC: Martinez +2=0-0
Robinson +2=0-0
Reichhelm +2=0-0
Shipley +1=0-1
Voight +2=0-0
1893
Golmayo +2=1-0
Vasquez +3=0-0
Showalter +6=2-1
Ettlinger +5=0-0 |
 |
| Oct-21-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: Wow, you guys are getting excited over nothing. I don't deny that starting in at some point in the 1890's, Lasker was stronger than Tarrasch. I'm just saying that Tarrasch did enjoy a brief period where he may have been the best player in the world, at some point in the 1880's. |
 |
Oct-21-09
 |
| keypusher: <TheFocus> Thanks, I stand corrected. <AnalyzeThis> Who's excited? <I'm just saying that Tarrasch did enjoy a brief period where he may have been the best player in the world, at some point in the 1880's.> Hmmm, I wonder when.
He finished in a massive pileup behind Isidor Gunsberg at Hamburg 1885, so not then. He took 1886 off. He finished in a tie for 5th at Frankfurt 1887, so it wasn't then. He had a minus score at Leipzig 1888, which rules out 1888 (though he did win a minor tournament that year). He finally won a strong tournament by finishing a point and a half ahead of second-place Amos Burn at Breslau 1889. The Breslau tournament ran from July 15-26, 1889. So I guess it was mid-to-late July 1889 that Tarrasch was Numero Uno. |
 |
Oct-30-09
 |
| Jonathan Sarfati: Andy Soltis' fine new book "Why Lasker Matters" lists some scores of their common opponents, showing that Lasker's overwhelming match victory was a fair reflection: vs. Chigorin, Tarrasch had +2 over 34 games while Lasker scored +7 in 21; vs. Akiba Rubinstein Tarrasch was -8 without a single win, while Lasker scored +2-1=2; vs. David Janowski Tarrasch scored +3 compared to Lasker's huge +22; vs. Geza Maroczy, Tarrasch was +1 over 16 games while Lasker scored +4-0=1, vs. Richard Teichmann Tarrasch scored +8-5=2, while Lasker beat him all four tournament games. The only leading player where Tarrasch had a slight lead was Pillsbury:
Tarrasch had a narrow plus score of +6-5=2, while Lasker was even +5-5=4. |
 |
Nov-11-09
 |
| parisattack: <Jonathan Sarfati: Andy Soltis' fine new book "Why Lasker Matters" lists some scores of their common opponents, showing that Lasker's overwhelming match victory was a fair reflection:> The case seems solid enough that the good Doctor was not quite a match for Lasker. But around the turn of the century I'm sure he would have given it a better go. I am also sure if I had cut my teeth on Three Hundred Chess Games instead of Chess Praxis I would have been a stronger player. But, alas, I was bitten by the hypermodern bug early and still somewhat infected 40 years later. |
 |
| Nov-12-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: I didn't mention this, but Lasker drew a match against his brother. |
 |
| Nov-12-09 |
| TheFocus: <AnalyzeThis><I didn't mention this, but Lasker drew a match against his brother.> The Lasker brothers tied at Berlin 1890. The play-off match was one drawn game. |
 |
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 11 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
|
 |
|